Kosher Jesus

[irosie91]

penny says that jesus sermonized the Samaritans----but has no idea what he said-----if anything

 

[hobelim]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

what does "you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" mean---do you know the origin of the adage? I have no recollection of Jesus saying "Why worry about what you eat or what you wear" you got a link. What was a typical rabbi in the time
of Jesus? ----

It means that they were obsessing over a gnat literally but have swallowed a camel figuratively, making a big deal out of superficial things but neglecting to discern or conform to the deeper implications of Kashrut.

"Its not what goes into the mouth that defiles, its what comes out of it."

It was probably a twist on an existing expression, "He that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel"

 

[Penelope]

Yes that is true, but there are also many contradictions in the OT as well. Also who penned what is anyones best guess, Moses , if there was a Moses as described didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated at a much later date. No majic staff, parting of the sea, exodus as described, ark and world wide flood, no Jonah in the belly a huge fish.
What we have is two man made religions. When one country takes over another , a new religion is made. Rome was very accepting of incorporating new religions, but since the Temple was destroyed, apparently the locals needed a new religion and one that was all inclusive, as a road to peaceful existence.

 

[irosie91]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

what does "you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" mean---do you know the origin of the adage? I have no recollection of Jesus saying "Why worry about what you eat or what you wear" you got a link. What was a typical rabbi in the time
of Jesus? ----

It means that they were obsessing over a gnat literally but have swallowed a camel figuratively, making a big deal out of superficial things but neglecting to discern or conform to the deeper implications of Kashrut.

"Its not what goes into the mouth that defiles, its what comes out of it."

It was probably a twist on an existing expression, "He that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel"

oh----you got that from an existing expression---right---jesus used lots of EXISTING EXPRESSIONS----specifically those
used in Talmudic arguments. ---the expression was used in the manner that talmudists used them. Is a person guilty if he
kills a camel? Of what is he guilty?. As to "strain" a flea---
the issue would be removing a flea from a drink. It seems that Jesus would prefer to leave the bug in the wine cup (??) Long ago I heard a radio sermon about some thing in the NT--about those damned Pharisees that were so "legalistic" that they TITHED CUMIN That means that they donated
one tenth of the cumin harvest. The genius described
the TITHING of cumin "YES---CUMIN GRAINS ARE LIKE
PEPPER CORNS ---the PHARISEES would count out the seeds and take one of each ten at their TITHE (because they
were evil bastards so jesus set them straight) In fact the
expression "he tithes cumin" was actually a Pharisee saying
about just how NUTTY some people are-----people who
are ignorant and do things just to appear super duper pious----
because IN FACT CUMIN IS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT
FROM THE TITHE LAWS. The radio sermonizer had NO
CONCEPT of the meaning of the saying-----but simply DECIDED HE KNEW----Jesus used it exactly as HIS FELLOW PHARISEES USED IT. There are lots of people on this
board who THINK they "know"

 

[irosie91]

Yes that is true, but there are also many contradictions in the OT as well. Also who penned what is anyones best guess, Moses , if there was a Moses as described didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated at a much later date. No majic staff, parting of the sea, exodus as described, ark and world wide flood, no Jonah in the belly a huge fish.
What we have is two man made religions. When one country takes over another , a new religion is made. Rome was very accepting of incorporating new religions, but since the Temple was destroyed, apparently the locals needed a new religion and one that was all inclusive, as a road to peaceful existence.

your garbled stupidity is in NO WAY responsive to the issues under discussion.. Your reconstruction of history moves into
the realm of PSYCHOTIC I find your CONSPIRACY
approach to the INVENTION OF A NEW RELIGION---really
fascinating-----who orchestrated the conspiracy----PAUL?. Paul was a MANIACAL IMPERIALIST RELIGION INVENTER??????----well-----actually you would be right if you named CONSTANTINE------the emperor of THE HOLY ROMAN, As to the JONAH STORY-----another maniacal
conspiracy-----who did that one?. OH!!! I KNOW WHO DID IT ---it was ZOG!!!!!!
EMPIRE

 

[irosie91]

If the Rabbi would put down the Talmud and start reading the Written Torah / compare it with the New Testament he would see that Moses spoke of the LORD, Isaiah spoke of LORD, David spoke of LORD, Ezekiel spoke of LORD and many other servants throughout the Old Testament / Torah all knew the Lord was the Son of God - Jesus Christ. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ. Psalm 22 is another prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus is in all 66 books of the King James Holy Bible. If the Rabbi spent as much time studying to learn the truth as he did fabricating a lie with his book he would have learned that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Why does the Rabbi believe in a book of lies (Talmud) that disagrees with the written Torah (Written Word of God)? Why would any Jew take the words of men over the Written Word of God Is it not foolishness to do this?

according to the NT----Jesus quotes the Talmud ---LEFT AND RIGHT -----if he rejected the Talmud-----he should have SAID SO. In fact----he specifically ENDORSED IT (sorry jere---but it is so)

Jesus did say so in no uncertain terms, that he rejected the Talmud, every time he upbraided the pharisees for maintaining the "traditions of men" while neglecting the deeper implications of the written law rendering it null and void.

"you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" 'Why worry about what you eat or what you wear", "What goes into the mouth cannot defile you", etc.

Not quite the typical rabbi.

what does "you strain at a gnat but swallow a camel" mean---do you know the origin of the adage? I have no recollection of Jesus saying "Why worry about what you eat or what you wear" you got a link. What was a typical rabbi in the time
of Jesus? ----

It means that they were obsessing over a gnat literally but have swallowed a camel figuratively, making a big deal out of superficial things but neglecting to discern or conform to the deeper implications of Kashrut.

"Its not what goes into the mouth that defiles, its what comes out of it."

It was probably a twist on an existing expression, "He that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel"

so-? that's a Talmudic argument------you simply endorsed the idea that Jesus did Talmud. It does not mean-----got eat pork. I still do not believe that Jesus said-----"it's really idiotic to wash your hands before eating----why bother?"

 

[Penelope]

Yes that is true, but there are also many contradictions in the OT as well. Also who penned what is anyones best guess, Moses , if there was a Moses as described didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated at a much later date. No majic staff, parting of the sea, exodus as described, ark and world wide flood, no Jonah in the belly a huge fish.
What we have is two man made religions. When one country takes over another , a new religion is made. Rome was very accepting of incorporating new religions, but since the Temple was destroyed, apparently the locals needed a new religion and one that was all inclusive, as a road to peaceful existence.

your garbled stupidity is in NO WAY responsive to the issues under discussion.. Your reconstruction of history moves into
the realm of PSYCHOTIC I find your CONSPIRACY
approach to the INVENTION OF A NEW RELIGION---really
fascinating-----who orchestrated the conspiracy----PAUL?. Paul was a MANIACAL IMPERIALIST RELIGION INVENTER??????----well-----actually you would be right if you named CONSTANTINE------the emperor of THE HOLY ROMAN, As to the JONAH STORY-----another maniacal
conspiracy-----who did that one?. OH!!! I KNOW WHO DID IT ---it was ZOG!!!!!!
EMPIRE

There was no Paul.

 

[Indeependent]

Yes that is true, but there are also many contradictions in the OT as well. Also who penned what is anyones best guess, Moses , if there was a Moses as described didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated at a much later date. No majic staff, parting of the sea, exodus as described, ark and world wide flood, no Jonah in the belly a huge fish.
What we have is two man made religions. When one country takes over another , a new religion is made. Rome was very accepting of incorporating new religions, but since the Temple was destroyed, apparently the locals needed a new religion and one that was all inclusive, as a road to peaceful existence.

your garbled stupidity is in NO WAY responsive to the issues under discussion.. Your reconstruction of history moves into
the realm of PSYCHOTIC I find your CONSPIRACY
approach to the INVENTION OF A NEW RELIGION---really
fascinating-----who orchestrated the conspiracy----PAUL?. Paul was a MANIACAL IMPERIALIST RELIGION INVENTER??????----well-----actually you would be right if you named CONSTANTINE------the emperor of THE HOLY ROMAN, As to the JONAH STORY-----another maniacal
conspiracy-----who did that one?. OH!!! I KNOW WHO DID IT ---it was ZOG!!!!!!
EMPIRE

Penelope IS psychotic.

 

[irosie91]

Yes that is true, but there are also many contradictions in the OT as well. Also who penned what is anyones best guess, Moses , if there was a Moses as described didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated at a much later date. No majic staff, parting of the sea, exodus as described, ark and world wide flood, no Jonah in the belly a huge fish.
What we have is two man made religions. When one country takes over another , a new religion is made. Rome was very accepting of incorporating new religions, but since the Temple was destroyed, apparently the locals needed a new religion and one that was all inclusive, as a road to peaceful existence.

your garbled stupidity is in NO WAY responsive to the issues under discussion.. Your reconstruction of history moves into
the realm of PSYCHOTIC I find your CONSPIRACY
approach to the INVENTION OF A NEW RELIGION---really
fascinating-----who orchestrated the conspiracy----PAUL?. Paul was a MANIACAL IMPERIALIST RELIGION INVENTER??????----well-----actually you would be right if you named CONSTANTINE------the emperor of THE HOLY ROMAN, As to the JONAH STORY-----another maniacal
conspiracy-----who did that one?. OH!!! I KNOW WHO DID IT ---it was ZOG!!!!!!
EMPIRE

Penelope IS psychotic.

independent----even the rantings of psychotic have some sort of meaning----they do not arise from THE THIN AIR---they are manifestations of some sort of disordered existing stuff in the brain----do you know what >>>
from penny
Moses , if there was a Moses as described
didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated
at a much later date <<<< do you what that means?

"""ORALLY TRANSLATED""" ?????

 

[irosie91]

Yes that is true, but there are also many contradictions in the OT as well. Also who penned what is anyones best guess, Moses , if there was a Moses as described didn't pen anything, it was all orally translated at a much later date. No majic staff, parting of the sea, exodus as described, ark and world wide flood, no Jonah in the belly a huge fish.
What we have is two man made religions. When one country takes over another , a new religion is made. Rome was very accepting of incorporating new religions, but since the Temple was destroyed, apparently the locals needed a new religion and one that was all inclusive, as a road to peaceful existence.

your garbled stupidity is in NO WAY responsive to the issues under discussion.. Your reconstruction of history moves into
the realm of PSYCHOTIC I find your CONSPIRACY
approach to the INVENTION OF A NEW RELIGION---really
fascinating-----who orchestrated the conspiracy----PAUL?. Paul was a MANIACAL IMPERIALIST RELIGION INVENTER??????----well-----actually you would be right if you named CONSTANTINE------the emperor of THE HOLY ROMAN, As to the JONAH STORY-----another maniacal
conspiracy-----who did that one?. OH!!! I KNOW WHO DID IT ---it was ZOG!!!!!!
EMPIRE

There was no Paul.

I TRULY believe that there was a PAUL-----I don't necessarily believe that all the crap ATTRIBUTED TO HIM----was really
his------but I do believe that there was a PAUL IN THE CULT
OF JESUS-----Paul seemed most interested in getting
greeks and romans to convert to the cult of Jesus----so he
worked very hard to make Judaism palatable to romans and
greeks by telling them-----you need not keep kosher or
get circumcised to in order to take up jewish ethics-----
the hate stuff attributed to him especially "I USED TO
BE A PHARISEE BUT NOW I KNOW THEY STINK" was
pure CONSTANTINE

 

[Meriweather]

It was paul, who never knew jesus and who came up with the cockamemi story about the road from damasus and visions,he started recruiting the pagans, came up the concept of original sin, don't have to eat kosher and that jesus did away with the law, it was paul who said it, to get even more pagans they adopted even more paganism and finally broke with changing the sabbath and naming jesus a part of a triune god

Good opening post, but keep in mind that the Rabbi is overlooking some essential differences in what Jesus taught. It was not unusual in Jesus' day for Jews to belong to different sects. I am glad the Rabbi is presenting the foundation of Judaism in Jesus' teachings. We get a little of that in Catholicism because our readings are taken from both the New Testament and Jewish scriptures. Many (though not all) are well-versed in Jewish history. Jews and Catholics aren't going to agree on some essential differences, but I do think to understand Jesus fully people do need to understand his Jewish faith.

I would advise not being overly harsh on Paul, who was also a Jew and a Pharisee. He got what Jesus was saying--but many Protestant sects reinterpreted Paul once they broke away from the Catholic Church. Paul was not out "recruiting" pagans. Rather, he shared Jesus' vision that God's revelation was now meant to extend beyond Jewish borders. The Church, not Paul, decided that Gentiles who wanted to follow The Way (as it was called) did not also have to convert to Judaism.

Some Protestants now have the idea that the entire Law was done away with. Catholics/Orthodox eschew that, and teach that moral law stands, and will stand. The Law both Jesus and Paul were referencing were Laws such as Kosher laws, tax laws, etc. People how in those days religious belief and government were one--we're too used to seeing them separately.

 

[Meriweather]

I TRULY believe that there was a PAUL-----I don't necessarily believe that all the crap ATTRIBUTED TO HIM----was really
his------but I do believe that there was a PAUL IN THE CULT
OF JESUS-----Paul seemed most interested in getting
greeks and romans to convert to the cult of Jesus----so he
worked very hard to make Judaism palatable to romans and
greeks by telling them-----you need not keep kosher or
get circumcised to in order to take up jewish ethics-----
the hate stuff attributed to him especially "I USED TO
BE A PHARISEE BUT NOW I KNOW THEY STINK" was
pure CONSTANTINE

Paul was not against Pharisees. He did work among Gentiles, and as such, he asked the Church in Jerusalem for the policy on Gentile converts to Christianity. Did Gentiles first need to convert to Judaism to become Christians? The Church, not Paul, made a decision. From what I know, most God-fearers (as they were known) were not required to be circumcised or follow all Jewish law. Christianity adopted that same policy and essentially said that Gentile converts to Christianity were only required to keep the Noachide Laws, i.e. moral law.

 

[Meriweather]

Essentially the gentiles have little concept about what it actually means to be a Jew or what is in the Tanakh and Talmud . Otherwise some of the stories of their Bible (the Gospels and the Epistles) would have been easy to identify as spurious as a ham at Passover. it was easy to get the pagans to accept paul's new religion as they had no idea of torah or required to keep it, so with the stories of virgin births man gods it was easy for them to join , and it continues today

We would have to separately discuss each passage that is deemed spurious. I do agree that some accounts of the Last Supper (Passover) were more focused on the then current event than on carefully relating what usually goes on at a Passover meal and the differences that occurred at the Last Supper. Christians who are not familiar with traditional Passover are going to miss some things that would only interest--and have meaning--to Christians.

 

[HaShev]

That's the least of your worries about the
Last Supper Story.
Historically the only sentencing on passover was done to Yeshu son of the harlot Mary of 100bc. They don't do things like that on high holidays, that's to specific an occurance, therefore that portion of the "created" image is regarding another era persona, the half Roman Yeshu.
The other problem is that the story uses 12 for the zodiac, and 12 is the number of messenger prophets under Mithra
& Lucifer. All 12 fall asleep(through using psychedelic mushrooms says Yehuda texts) supposedly guarding over their icon.
For crying out loud the are called Nazarenes (guardians) and they all failed to live up to that name, just as Jesus is fallaciously called the great Shepherd after causing his sheep to be scattered and slain.

 

[irosie91]

I TRULY believe that there was a PAUL-----I don't necessarily believe that all the crap ATTRIBUTED TO HIM----was really
his------but I do believe that there was a PAUL IN THE CULT
OF JESUS-----Paul seemed most interested in getting
greeks and romans to convert to the cult of Jesus----so he
worked very hard to make Judaism palatable to romans and
greeks by telling them-----you need not keep kosher or
get circumcised to in order to take up jewish ethics-----
the hate stuff attributed to him especially "I USED TO
BE A PHARISEE BUT NOW I KNOW THEY STINK" was
pure CONSTANTINE

Paul was not against Pharisees. He did work among Gentiles, and as such, he asked the Church in Jerusalem for the policy on Gentile converts to Christianity. Did Gentiles first need to convert to Judaism to become Christians? The Church, not Paul, made a decision. From what I know, most God-fearers (as they were known) were not required to be circumcised or follow all Jewish law. Christianity adopted that same policy and essentially said that Gentile converts to Christianity were only required to keep the Noachide Laws, i.e. moral law.

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

 

[Penelope]

View attachment 87172 That's the least of your worries about the
Last Supper Story.
Historically the only sentencing on passover was done to Yeshu son of the harlot Mary of 100bc. They don't do things like that on high holidays, that's to specific an occurance, therefore that portion of the "created" image is regarding another era persona, the half Roman Yeshu.
The other problem is that the story uses 12 for the zodiac, and 12 is the number of messenger prophets under Mithra
& Lucifer. All 12 fall asleep(through using psychedelic mushrooms says Yehuda texts) supposedly guarding over their icon.
For crying out loud the are called Nazarenes (guardians) and they all failed to live up to that name, just as Jesus is fallaciously called the great Shepherd after causing his sheep to be scattered and slain.

12 represents the 12 tribes of Jacob which represent the 12 tribes of the zodiac.

 

[Penelope]

I TRULY believe that there was a PAUL-----I don't necessarily believe that all the crap ATTRIBUTED TO HIM----was really
his------but I do believe that there was a PAUL IN THE CULT
OF JESUS-----Paul seemed most interested in getting
greeks and romans to convert to the cult of Jesus----so he
worked very hard to make Judaism palatable to romans and
greeks by telling them-----you need not keep kosher or
get circumcised to in order to take up jewish ethics-----
the hate stuff attributed to him especially "I USED TO
BE A PHARISEE BUT NOW I KNOW THEY STINK" was
pure CONSTANTINE

Paul was not against Pharisees. He did work among Gentiles, and as such, he asked the Church in Jerusalem for the policy on Gentile converts to Christianity. Did Gentiles first need to convert to Judaism to become Christians? The Church, not Paul, made a decision. From what I know, most God-fearers (as they were known) were not required to be circumcised or follow all Jewish law. Christianity adopted that same policy and essentially said that Gentile converts to Christianity were only required to keep the Noachide Laws, i.e. moral law.

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul said himself he was all things to all people.

 

[Meriweather]

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

 

[irosie91]

View attachment 87172 That's the least of your worries about the
Last Supper Story.
Historically the only sentencing on passover was done to Yeshu son of the harlot Mary of 100bc. They don't do things like that on high holidays, that's to specific an occurance, therefore that portion of the "created" image is regarding another era persona, the half Roman Yeshu.
The other problem is that the story uses 12 for the zodiac, and 12 is the number of messenger prophets under Mithra
& Lucifer. All 12 fall asleep(through using psychedelic mushrooms says Yehuda texts) supposedly guarding over their icon.
For crying out loud the are called Nazarenes (guardians) and they all failed to live up to that name, just as Jesus is fallaciously called the great Shepherd after causing his sheep to be scattered and slain.

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

what Paul DID do is advocate NOT engaging in circumcision and -----not washing hands-----making it very easy to identify
jews. He set the table for Constantine and the children of
Constantine---- to wit----genocidal catholics like whore Isabella and adolf and the various popes that presided over church mediated genocide-------and Muhummad who adopted the
some of the canon laws which mandated, easy identification of jews into "shariah" law. Muhummad retained
circumcision and to some extent hand washing----but he adopted ----quite specifically-----mandatory yellow marking and the all important ban on weapons and even ban on riding horses. Some of the very same laws ----found their way into the Nuremburg laws. Thus PAUL---probably unwittingly---initiated the feasibility of religious authority mediated genocide
thru methods of convenient ID. Identification is very important in conducting selective genocide. and selective
oppression and exploitation. Constantine did the poll tax thing---which became Jizya in shariah law and was more or less imposed in catholic countries-----and pillage and confiscation in the Nuremburg laws.

 

[irosie91]

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

Penny---you endorsed Merri's statement about Paul---did you forget that you "know" that Paul did not exist?